Mr. William Nagel v. The Czech Republic - Chapter 5 - Investment Arbitration Decisions
About the Editor:
Noah Rubins is a Partner in the Paris office of Freshfields, where he is a member of the international arbitration and public international law groups. Mr. Rubins is a U.S. qualified lawyer and has advised and represented clients in arbitrations under ICSID, ICC, ICDR, SCC and UNCITRAL rules. He specializes in disputes in the former Soviet Union and investment treaty arbitration. In addition to advising clients, Mr. Rubins has served as arbitrator in a range of disputes, conducted under the ICC, ICSID, LCIA, SCC and UNCITRAL rules.
Michael Polkinghorne is a partner and Matthew Secomb an associate in the International Arbitration Group of White & Case LLP, based in the Paris office. Neither of the authors is qualified to practice Swedish law, which should explain any surprises this note holds for those individuals who are.
Originally from Investment Arbitration Decisions
MR. WILLIAM NAGEL v. THE CZECH REPUBLIC DECISION BY THE SVEA COURT OF APPEAL RENDERED ON 26 AUGUST 2005
(1) Did the Arbitral Tribunal rule on all of the issues that were submitted to it?
(2) Was the decision taken by the Arbitral Tribunal a jurisdictional decision, or a decision on the substance of the parties’ dispute?
(1) The Arbitral Tribunal had effectively dealt with all of the points submitted to it.
(2) The Arbitral Tribunal had made a substantive assessment and a final ruling on the substance of the matter.
V. Mr. William Nagel v. The Czech Republic
Decision by The Svea Court of Appeal Rendered on 26 August 2005
1) Did the Arbitral Tribunal rule on all of the issues that were submitted to it?
2) Was the decision taken by the Arbitral Tribunal a jurisdictional decision, or a decision on the substance of the parties' dispute?
Observations by Michael Polkinghorne and Matthew Secomb